Germany Confiscating Homes To Use For Migrants

Untrue.

Just spoke to my German friend and she did a quick trawl of German news sources for me, and not a single mention.

Infowars have just made it up.

a reply to: Painterz

That's funny. I did a search on Google and there are at least 7 news sources that have the same story. Someone is bullsh*tting.

a reply to: seasonal

This sounds very bad for the people of Germany.

Cause ya know... Make buildings vacant again!

They were empty for fife years, what's the fuzz? If everyone rather keeps his investments empty, cities would be very boring places quite soon. Did that thought ever cross your mind?
Only infowars can make some actual common sense appear to be a communist hatecrime, kinda funny though.

a reply to: Hecate666

Hope your family is not harmed by any of these well meaning but poorly thought out social engineering projects.

Seems like it is a plan to push not just Europe to the brink but the world.

a reply to: jafo1973

Nothing that wont happen in the US when the Democrats are back in control.

a reply to: seasonal

are home owners being PAID anything or are they just having their family homes confiscated by a tyrannical government?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Infowars always try to make things seem worse off than reality. I stopped reading anything from them, they are just as bad as the MSM although they don't lie about it just spin it to make it look horrid.

originally posted by: Painterz
Untrue.

Just spoke to my German friend and she did a quick trawl of German news sources for me, and not a single mention.

Infowars have just made it up.

Could the German government be covering up the story?

a reply to: TonyS

Seems like the dems will let this happen repubs will let the Corps do this.

What's the difference?

a reply to: seasonal

First of all, these properties were in a state of disrepair, and the landlord had shown no interest in ever having them renovated, even though they could have made a significant amount of money for themselves by doing so, and renting them out once more. Unfortunately, the owner declined on several occasions, which will have had two major effects on local matters.

First of all, a significant number of people could have been housed in those residences, but because the landlord did not want to pay to have them renovated, he was simply leaving them empty, and had been since 2012. I would argue that if one is in a position to own six residential properties, one ought to keep them in good and livable order, or sell them, one or the other. Owning land and doing nothing with it for an extended period is not a luxury that can be afforded in a built up, metropolitan area. The reasons for this are many fold, but apart from anything else, one must understand that a cities life blood is those who live in it, and if there is a housing shortage, it is highly irresponsible to leave buildings damaged and empty, which could house people who want to pay rent.

Second of all, the real crux of issues like these, is what happens to buildings when they go entirely without proper maintenance for extended periods. There was a case local to me, where a landlord had his property seized by the council, because he had left it empty for something like twelve years or so, despite having the money to pay for renovation. This had caused all manner of problems, including damp troubles which were spreading to neighbouring properties, tiles coming free of the roof in the wind and falling off the roof with regularity, posing a risk to the passing public, surrounding properties, and the residents thereof, and rot, which had set into various elements of the buildings construction, and was causing a stench. The building had been left full of trash also, which attracted vermin to the area. House prices on that one road TUMBLED as a result of the presence of this building.

So, the council, after much consultation and attempts to negotiate a different outcome, sent in contractors to bring the building back to code, and charged the owner, as well as putting tenants in the building.

And before anyone gives me a sob story about personal liberty and property, I get it, I really do. But what you may not be aware of, is that property owners of the sort detailed in this case, and indeed in the case here in Southend, UK, can be bloody tricky people. For one thing, it is a little known, not to mention very sly tactic, to purchase poorly maintained property, leave it to go to crap, and wait for other properties surrounding it to fall drastically in price. This means that they can THEN come in, purchase the surrounding properties at a steal compared with the price they are really worth, and do the work on the Trojan house (not a bad term for it actually), leaving them with a larger number of properties, by way of stealth, deception, and downright willful disregard for the hearth and home of those who live in the properties surrounding the dilapidated one they started with.

How would all of you law abiding, property loving, freedom enjoying fans of liberty, like it if some douche bought the house next door to or a house close to yours, and deliberately allowed it to go to crap, with the express intention of lowering the price of your house on the open market? I mean, none of you are probably fans of Universal Healthcare (you know, where the taxpayer is the only one paying for anyones treatment). So hows this? You live in a house for a decade, intend to live in it your whole life, got all your money in it. You get sick. But of course, when you go to sell it, you realise that the fellow who owns the house down the block from you, only owns that house so that he can make local prices come way down, so that he can afford more than one or two properties on the street. You cannot sell your house at a price worth selling it for, and because you cannot work at the moment, you either have to rely on state aid, or sell your house for a fraction of its actual worth, so that you can get treatment.

That is not right, you know it is not. At least this way, those properties will not be allowed to decay, they will be used for something, rather than sitting empty and having no revenue going in or out of them. It may not be ideal, but people really need to stop buying property unless they have already costed, formulated, and partially enacted a plan to see those properties become homes to residents and revenue for the owner.

FYI for those of you that don't know Germany's (local/state) goverment(s) have a habit of censoring news that do not potray them in a positive light.

I.E. like the ongoing migrant issues plaguing the country, but what do I know. I'm just a nobody.

a reply to: FamCore

Confiscated usually means taken-no $$$.

It is a goat screw, but if it is anti constitutional, then I imagine the courts will have to introduce some sanity to this whole thing.

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
Don't really care since it's Germany's problem. Sucks to be them, I have no sympathy for thier stupidity. They made their bed, now they will sleep in it and get a good nights rest. For tomorrow there will be dispair.

Well it was forced upon them by their politicians
I am surprised Le Pen didn't get in, in France

Europe is in trouble

a reply to: Raggedyman

It seems like the people are content with it since no one is in outrage over it. Europe is fine. Give it another 3 years, they will love their new neighbors.

The title ( from the article) is highly misleading. The properties are not being confiscated.

What is happening is they are being forced to let let out the properties, that had been vacant for an extended time, via a trustee.

The actual ownership is not changing.

a reply to: TrueBrit

If the property has it's taxes paid and is not causing problems for the neighbors- I think it is none of any ones business.

If the owner wants to leave it empty-so be it.

If there are problems with lawn-or sidewalks-fix and send the owner the bill.

Renovations are not the govt.'s business. And using this as an excuse to confiscate private property is a recipe for tyranny.

a reply to: 4N0M4LY

It's ridiculous at best, plus they 'somehow' forget to bring the whole context of this practice. In the end it's about some (more or less) rich investors trying (more or less) everything to save/ make a few bucks.
Some might say they're well within their rights, others might add they're well out of their minds as well.

Die da vorn, wir da hinten

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ManFromEurope

Source please.

Source, German only, sorry.

And it was 2017.. Sorry, in my mind it was 2 years ago, don't know why.
The action itself seems to be based on the "Landesverwaltungsgesetz § 210" Legal

a reply to: ScepticScot

If you have no control over your private property, you do not own it.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Nope, original Abendblatt source is linked in the article from the OP. Tomatoes on eyes seems to be more likely.